The College of Wooster The College of Wooster

Open Works Open Works

All Faculty Articles All Faculty Scholarship

1-1-2017

Beyond the Mentor-Mentee Model: A Case for Multi-Mentoring in Beyond the Mentor-Mentee Model: A Case for Multi-Mentoring in

Undergraduate Research Undergraduate Research

Brittany A. Nicholson Rice University

Meagen Pollock The College of Wooster, mpollock@wooster.edu

Caroline J. Ketcham Elon University

Heather M. Fitz Gibbon The College of Wooster

Evan D. Bradley The Pennsylvania State University

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://openworks.wooster.edu/facpub

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Nicholson, Brittany A.; Pollock, Meagen; Ketcham, Caroline J.; Fitz Gibbon, Heather M.; Bradley, Evan D.; and Bata, Michelle, "Beyond the Mentor-Mentee Model: A Case for Multi-Mentoring in Undergraduate Research" (2017). PURM, . Retrieved from https://openworks.wooster.edu/facpub/373

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the All Faculty Scholarship at Open Works, a service of The College of Wooster Libraries. This article was originally published in PURM (2017), available at https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/undergraduate-research/purm/purm-6-1/. For questions about OpenWorks, please contact openworks@wooster.edu.

Authors Authors Brittany A. Nicholson, Meagen Pollock, Caroline J. Ketcham, Heather M. Fitz Gibbon, Evan D. Bradley, and Michelle Bata

This article is available at Open Works: https://openworks.wooster.edu/facpub/373

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320833808

Beyond the mentor-mentee model: A case for multi-mentoring in

undergraduate research

Article · November 2017

CITATIONS

5READS

655

6 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Language Acquisition View project

Elon BrainCARE View project

Caroline J Ketcham

Elon University

73 PUBLICATIONS   869 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Heather Fitz Gibbon

College of Wooster

11 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Evan D Bradley

Pennsylvania State University

51 PUBLICATIONS   327 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Evan D Bradley on 03 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 P U R M 6.1

Brittany A. Nicholson, M.S. Candidate, Rice University, US

Meagen Pollock, Ph.D., The College of Wooster, US, mpollock@wooster.edu Caroline J. Ketcham, Ph.D., Elon University, US

Heather M. Fitz Gibbon, Ph.D., The College of Wooster, US

Evan D. Bradley, Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University Brandywine, US

Michelle Bata, Ph.D., Clark University, US

Undergraduate research is widely regarded as a high-impact educational practice (Kuh, 2008;

Lopatto, 2010). Students who participate in undergraduate research show gains in cognitive

development (e.g., Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007), academic success and persistence (e.g.,

Hathaway, Nagda, & Gregerman, 2002), and personal identity and affective growth (e.g., Hu, Kuh, &

Li, 2008). Furthermore, benefits can be compensatory, where women, first-generation students, and

those from traditionally underserved populations exhibit more pronounced gains compared to non-

minority groups (e.g., Gregerman, 2009; Osborn & Karukstis, 2009; Owerbach & Oyekan, 2015).

What qualifies as undergraduate research? The Council on Undergraduate Research defines

undergraduate research as “an inquiry of investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that

makes an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline.” However, many educators

prefer a broader definition that encompasses undergraduate research and scholarly and creative

work, choosing to view the endeavor as “a continuum of knowledge production, from knowledge new

to the learner to knowledge new to humankind, moving from the commonly known, to the commonly

not known, to the totally unknown” (Willison & O’Regan, 2007, p. 394). Regardless of whether the

research is original to the discipline or only to the student, a critical component that often

determines whether the student actually recognizes the gains from the experience is the mentor

(Aikens et al., 2016; Hartmann, Widner, & Carrick, 2013; Henne et al., 2008; Hunter et al., 2007,

2008; Kardash, Wallace, & Blockus, 2008; Laursen et al., 2010; Locks & Gregerman, 2008; Lopatto,

2004, 2010; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Russell, 2008; Taraban & Logue, 2012; Thiry et al., 2010;

Zydney et al., 2002).

The international higher education community has recently emphasized the importance of mentoring

in undergraduate research (Healey & Jenkins, 2009). Reports by the Boyer Commission and the

National Science Foundation recommend that undergraduate education should include research and

scholarly inquiry conducted in association with a faculty mentor (Boyer Commission on Educating

Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998; National Science Foundation, 2000). Results from

the Survey of Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE) show that learning gains are directly

correlated with the students’ evaluation of the mentor (Lopatto, 2010). The 2014 Gallup Purdue

Index Report found that having a mentor and working on a long-term project were two of the most

powerful factors connected to graduates having “great jobs” and “great lives” (Gallup, 2014). More

than ever, there is a global call for educational institutions to find ways to engage students in

Beyond the Mentor-Mentee Model:

A Case for Multi-Mentoring in Undergraduate Research

2 P U R M 6.1

undergraduate research experiences that are well-mentored.

The term mentoring has been defined extensively and variably in the literature, but these definitions

generally include reference to the experience levels of the people in the relationship, the manner in

which those people are exchanging information, and the type of information they are exchanging

(Higgins, Dobrow, & Roloff, 2010; Johnson, 2002; Kram, 1985; Thiry & Laursen, 2011). Johnson

(2015) proposed an operational definition for mentoring within the context of the academe:

“Mentoring is a personal and reciprocal relationship in which a more experienced (usually older)

faculty member acts as a guide, role model, teacher, and sponsor of a less experienced (usually

younger) faculty member or student. A mentor provides the mentee with knowledge, advice, counsel,

challenge, and support in the mentee’s pursuit of becoming a full member of a particular profession”

(p. 23).

Johnson’s (2015) definition focuses on the dyadic relationship between mentor and mentee, and

most research on mentoring is conducted within the framework of the classic master-apprentice

model (Allen, 2007; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). A significant body of work demonstrates the

effectiveness of the intense personal relationship that develops between a faculty mentor and a

student mentee who are mutually engaged in undergraduate research (e.g., Hartmann et al., 2013;

Lopatto, 2004; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004). However, many undergraduate researchers are not

working with a single mentor alone (Bradley et al., 2017; Guberman et al., 2006; Lopatto, 2010;

Lopatto & Tobias, 2010); instead, they surround themselves with a network of people who take an

active interest in their work and provide developmental assistance and support (Higgins & Kram,

2001; Higgins, Chandler, & Kram, 2007; Higgins et al., 2010). The developmental network

comprises individuals from a range of social spheres and can include both non-mentors and mentors

(Higgins et al., 2010; Kram & Ragins, 2007). Thus, effective mentoring in undergraduate research

also involves an understanding of the best practices in multi-mentoring.

Multi-mentoring gained serious attention from scholars in the mentoring community in the late

1990s (e.g., Baugh & Scandura, 1999; Dansky, 1996). Recent work has attempted to describe the

landscape of multi-mentoring by defining terms, characterizing mentoring structures, and exploring

outcomes (Huizing, 2012; Kroll, 2016). In the undergraduate research community, multi-mentoring

appears to be a common practice, particularly in the sciences (Bradley et al., 2017; Linn, Palmer,

Baranger, Gerard, & Stone, 2015). However, much of literature on and practice of mentoring

undergraduate researchers still contains an implicit assumption of the traditional one-on-one dyadic

model (Dotterer, 2002; Hartmann et al., 2013; Thiry & Laursen, 2011). Here, we argue that multi-

mentoring can be broadly applied in undergraduate research in a global context, across disciplines

and institutions. We briefly review relevant examples of multi-mentoring models and the concept of

co-mentoring from the professional development literature, discussing the opportunities and

challenges associated with applying these concepts to undergraduate research. We provide

suggestions for how research mentors and institutions can implement the structures and practices

of multi- and co-mentoring to enhance the undergraduate research experience.

Models of Multi-Mentoring

Multi-mentoring structures describe the way mentoring roles are fulfilled in a group of at least three

people. There is substantial literature on group mentoring in the workplace for professional

development. The goal of this paper is to place some of these relevant structures in the context of

undergraduate research and is not meant to be an exhaustive literature review. For a full review of

team-based mentoring and developmental networks, we refer the readers to Dobrow, Chandler,

Murphy, and Kram (2012), Huizing (2012), Kroll (2016), and references therein.

The types of multi-mentoring structures identified in extant literature that we review here include

3 P U R M 6.1

one-to-many, peer-group mentoring, many-to-many, many-to-one, and mentoring mosaics. One-to-

many mentoring involves several less experienced mentees mentored by a single, more experienced

person (Huizing, 2012). Although one-to-many mentoring can comprise a collection of mostly

unassociated, individual dyadic mentoring relationships (Baugh & Scandura, 1999), the strength of

this type of structure over the dyadic model is the potential for increased connectedness among the

mentees (Mezias & Scandura, 2005). Communication in this model is often networked, rather than

linear, meaning that all mentees are communicating simultaneously with one another (Gareis &

Nussbaum-Beach, 2007). Networked communication can lead to peer-group mentoring (Mullen,

2000), in which the role of mentor shifts within a group of mentees of similar experience levels. Peer-

group mentoring is a widely cited team-based mentoring model with demonstrated benefits for

professional and personal development (Huizing, 2012).

Peer-group mentoring is similar to many-to-many mentoring in that both can consist of large groups

with multiple mentors and mentees. However, in the many-to-many model, the role of mentor is

designated for the duration of the group (Huizing, 2012). Support is always provided in one direction,

from the mentors to the mentees. The benefits of the two models are similar, but many-to-many

mentoring can accommodate some of the deficiencies that occur in peer-group mentoring, such as

limited mentor skills or time constraints (Levine, Hebert, & Wright, 2003).

Many-to-one mentoring has at least two mentors who are focused on a single mentee (Huizing,

2012), increasing the opportunities for the mentee to receive mentoring benefits (Packard, Walsh, &

Seidenberg, 2004). However, the many-to-one model is less effective when the mentors do not

interact (Crocitto, Sullivan, & Carraher, 2005; de Janasz & Sullivan, 2004; Higgins, 2000; Mezias &

Scandura, 2005), requiring the mentee to integrate information and serve as the communicator

between mentors.

The mentoring mosaic is a model that more broadly encompasses multi-mentoring structures (Ayers

& Griffin, 2005; Dobrow et al., 2012; Mullen, 2000; 2009). This model is somewhat analogous to

the developmental network (Dobrow et al., 2012; Higgins and Kram, 2001; Higgins et al., 2010;

Kram & Ragins, 2007) or mentoring constellation (Kram, 1985) in that it recognizes that one mentor

cannot fill all the necessary roles for a mentee all of the time, so it relies on multiple mentors that

may change depending on the developmental stage of the mentees involved. According to Ayers and

Griffin (2005), the mentoring mosaic recognizes the interconnected aspects of mentoring, “such as

formal and informal situations, dyadic relationships, multiple mentors and changing roles from

protégé to mentor across a professional career, and the spiraling nature of mentoring over time” (p.

373). Multi-mentoring is a critical component of the mentoring mosaic, which clearly plays a powerful

role in the development of a mentee (Baugh & Scandura, 1999; Higgins & Thomas, 2001) and can

have significant benefits for students and faculty when applied to undergraduate research.

Co-Mentoring

In all of these multi-mentoring structures, interaction among mentors allows for the creation of a

collaborative environment that values interdependence, mutuality, and reciprocity (Fletcher, 1999;

Kram & Ragins, 2007; Mullen, 2009). When mentors have an intentional relationship where there is

reciprocity in teaching and learning, this is termed co-mentoring (Bona, Rinehart, & Volbrecht, 1995;

Kram & Ragins, 2007; Mullen, 2000 & 2009). Co-mentoring values and promotes a culture of

learning from and development of colleagues who may be at different ages and stages of their

career, breaking down power structures and flattening the hierarchy (Kroll, 2016). It assumes that

everyone has something to contribute and something to gain, which can be a powerful mechanism

for professional development (Mullen, 2000). Additionally, co-mentoring functions as a catalyst for

changing traditional practices and hierarchical systems (Mullen, 2009). The key activities needed in

co-mentoring are power sharing, turn taking, co-leading, dialogue, constructive feedback,

4 P U R M 6.1

“... multi-mentoring can be

more effective than

dyadic mentoring because

of the collaborative

interactions among

diverse, skilled people.”

transparency, and authenticity. These activities require co-mentors to be open to criticism and

formative feedback and not fearful of evaluation and judgment. Co-mentoring values the

characteristics, skills, and qualities of the individuals involved with a focus on professional

development (Mullen, 2000).

Multi-Mentoring and Co-Mentoring in Undergraduate Research:

Opportunities and Challenges

In the work environment, multi-mentoring can be more effective

than dyadic mentoring because of the collaborative

interactions among diverse, skilled people. When mentors

comprise diverse individuals from a range of social spheres,

mentees are exposed to a greater variety of ideas and

information (Dobrow & Higgins, 2005; Higgins, 2001; Higgins

et al., 2007; Ragins, 1997). Because mentors have varying

skill sets and expertise, they bring different strengths to the

mentoring relationship and can compensate for gaps in

support, thereby ensuring that all of the mentees’ needs are met

(Baugh & Scandura, 1999; de Janasz & Sullivan, 2004; Eby,

1997; Higgins & Thomas, 2001; Higgins et al., 2007; Levine et al.,

2003; McManus & Russell, 2007). Furthermore, having a range of

mentors increases the potential for an identity match between the mentor and mentee (DeCastro et

al., 2013).

Undergraduate research presents students with the opportunity to develop relationships with

multiple diverse mentors. Students report having mentors that range across academic levels (peers,

graduate students, postdocs, and faculty) and organizations (academic, industry, government)

(Bradley et al., 2017; Lopatto, 2010). In addition to their formally defined mentors, undergraduate

research students often turn to other individuals for informational, logistical, or psychosocial support

(Bradley et al., 2017; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). For example, undergraduate research students

may seek out faculty mentors for big-picture questions about project goals but may turn to peers or

postgraduates for technical advice (Dolan & Johnson, 2010). The increased diversity of role models

offered through multi-mentoring may be especially important for students from underrepresented

populations whose representation among faculty may be limited, leading to greater student retention

and success (Huggins, Jenkins, & Scurry, 2007; Locks & Gregerman, 2008; Lundberg & Schreiner,

2004; Nelson & Rogers, 2003; Towns, 2010).

There are psychosocial benefits that are enhanced by the collaborative nature of co- and multi-

mentoring. Many workplace studies demonstrate that the presence of multiple diverse mentors has

been linked with higher job satisfaction and greater professional success (Arthur & Rosseau, 1996;

de Janasz, Sullivan, & Whiting, 2003; Eby, 1997; Higgins, 2000; Higgins & Kram, 2001; Higgins et al.,

2007; Peluchette & Jeanquart, 2000). Although not a requirement, many relationships in workplace

multi-mentoring structures have been shown to develop informally and organically, leading to longer-

term bonds (Allen & Eby, 2007; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Compared to formal mentoring, informal

mentoring can also lead to greater gains in the affective domain, such as self-confidence,

satisfaction, and persistence (Mullen, 2016).

In undergraduate research, students who participate in collaborative mentoring relationships show

gains in personal and professional growth (Hunter et al., 2007). The collaborative environment helps

students take ownership of their work, learning independence and self-confidence, leading to gains

in socialization in the field, networking, and adaptability (Lopatto, 2010; Shanahan et al., 2015; Wei

& Woodin, 2011). Long-term bonds that develop through informal mentoring help ensure students’

5 P U R M 6.1

“We assume that the

members of a multi-

mentor network are willing

to work toward collegiality.

This includes openness to

differing views,

experiences, and styles.”

needs are supported across their academic experiences (Barnett, 2011).

In addition to the psychosocial and career benefits, other aspects of multi-mentoring have potential

positive outcomes for the research project itself. From the beginning, multiple perspectives are

integrated into the question, methodology, analysis, and interpretation of results. This essentially

begins the peer-review process early and generates opportunities for cross-disciplinary work (Bradley

et al., 2017; Dotterer, 2002). Co-mentoring can also be an effective faculty development tool, where

observing other people mentoring may lead to enhanced mentoring across the faculty or among

postgraduates (Dolan & Johnson, 2010; Thomas & Gillespie, 2008).

A potential challenge to multi- and co-mentoring in undergraduate research is the perception that it

is a resource-intensive and expensive model. However, multi-mentoring can distribute some of the

faculty mentoring responsibilities to non-faculty members, expanding student research opportunities

at institutions that are limited by the number of available faculty (Wei & Woodin, 2011). Faculty

members who are concerned about the financial and time resources required to effectively mentor

research students may find some of these commitments can be spread across several mentors

through multi-mentoring (Hakim, 1998; Zydney et al., 2002). Distributing mentoring responsibilities

may allow faculty to remain engaged in their research while balancing other workload pressures,

particularly at U.S. and international institutions that demand high-level research from their

academic staff (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Thomas & Gillespie, 2008).

Another potential challenge of applying multi- and co-mentoring to undergraduate research relates

primarily to the quality of the relationships among mentors and mentees. Quality mentoring

relationships require time to mature and the short time frame of many undergraduate research

projects may not allow for strong ties to develop between students and multiple mentors (Hartmann

et al., 2013). Mentoring abilities may vary across mentors and may even have negative effects on

students. For example, postgraduate mentors, like graduate students and postdoctoral researchers,

may have a negative influence on undergraduate researchers by enhancing academic hierarchies

and imposing expectations that are unrealistic (Dolan & Johnson, 2010). Multiple mentors also

enhance the potential for increased role and interpersonal conflict (Baugh & Scandura, 1999). In the

following section, we discuss strategies for minimizing these challenges.

Suggestions for Implementing Multi-Mentoring and Co-Mentoring in Undergraduate Research

Our suggestions for implementing multi- and co-mentoring in undergraduate focus on the structure

of the undergraduate research experience and the development of relational skills. Some readers

may be employing these strategies with great success.

Those who are starting an undergraduate research

program or are interested in transitioning to a multi-

mentor model may find these suggestions a useful

starting point.

Multi- and co-mentoring are most effective in

environments that exhibit a culture of collegiality, where

all members of the network show care and respect for one

another (Higgins & Thomas, 2001; Johnson et al., 2014).

We assume that the members of a multi-mentor network

are willing to work toward collegiality. This includes

openness to differing views, experiences, and styles. It

requires members to trust and be trusted, to have integrity,

be honest, take pride and responsibility in their work, and

communicate when there are conflicts or concerns

6 P U R M 6.1

(Johnson et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2014). If relationships are dysfunctional and conflict extends

beyond interpersonal are philosophical approaches, it may be that those members should not be

involved in the multi-mentoring group.

Relational skills require practice and are most effectively learned when actions and values are

taught and modeled (Johnson et al., 2014). For example, it is very effective for undergraduate

students to see co-mentors discussing varying perspectives and learning technical skills from one

another; students observe that both mentors respect and value the experience and expertise of each

other and are willing to learn and be taught (McKendree et al., 1998). To enhance communication

and limit interpersonal conflict, the group members should discuss roles early in the research

process and return to the discussion as the project progresses. An undergraduate research syllabus

could be used to initiate the discussions and clarify expectations and roles for the mentees and

mentors (Scisney-Matlock & Matlock, 2001; Whiteside et al., 2007).

The quality of mentoring relationships can be enhanced by increasing the frequency of interactions

(Aikens et al., 2017). Although meeting several times throughout a semester can be beneficial for a

research group, weekly meetings are even more beneficial (Aikens et al., 2017; Whiteside et al.,

2007). Logistically, weekly meetings can be helpful for keeping track of project progress, especially

when meeting notes and research deadlines are recorded and distributed to the research group

(Whiteside et al., 2007). Regular meetings also offer opportunities for communication, reflection,

and rapport development (Aikens et al., 2017; Whiteside et al., 2007). Mentors can provide students

with support while getting to know them as people (Handelsman et al., 2005; Schlosser et al., 2003).

When undergraduates perceive their mentors as taking a genuine interest in their experiences,

students report that the meetings with mentors are highly influential and effective (Hartmann et al.,

2013; Thiry & Laursen, 2011; Whiteside et al., 2007).

In addition to relational skills, the size of the mentor network should be considered. Ideal group size

depends on several factors, such as the nature of the research, the personalities of the members,

and the resources available to support the research, but the literature suggests that developmental

networks comprising three to five close relationships are most satisfying to individuals (Higgins et al.,

2010; Kram & Ragins, 2007; van Emmerick, 2004). A multi- and co-mentoring structure that can be

commonly utilized in undergraduate research is the mentoring triad, where an undergraduate

student is mentored by a postgraduate, who is mentored by a faculty member (Aikens et al., 2016;

Thiry & Laursen, 2011; Whiteside et al., 2007). Research suggests that undergraduates experience

the most positive outcomes in closed triads, in which ties are strong among all of the triad members

(Aikens et al., 2016). It is the combination of multi- and co-mentoring that leads to the success of

closed triads, as undergraduates whose mentors do not interact experience worse outcomes than

undergraduates who have only a single faculty mentor (Aikens et al., 2016). Strong ties among

members of the mentoring network enhance communication, mutual trust, and group rapport

(Aikens et al., 2016; Coleman, 1988)

Research projects should be specifically designed for a mentoring network involving multiple

mentors and students. Projects should focus on a common goal (Wei & Woodin, 2011). Depending

on group size, the larger research problem can be subdivided into smaller student projects (Wei &

Woodin, 2011). When undergraduate students are responsible for a specific aspect of the research,

they develop a greater mastery of the skills and own the part of the project that they bring to the

collaboration (Whiteside et al., 2007). It may even help to assign specific titles to the individual

students or small research groups to more clearly define roles and responsibilities (Whiteside et al.,

2007). This approach appears to be more common in the natural sciences, as demonstrated by the

greater number of mentors, including peer mentors, in science mentor networks (Bradley et al.,

2017). However, this aspect of multi-mentoring could be applied to other disciplines and

7 P U R M 6.1

intentionally developed with appropriate project design (Bradley et al., 2017). In particular,

interdisciplinary projects that involve knowledge and techniques from several disciplines naturally

tend toward multiple mentors and subdivided student projects (Bradley et al., 2017).

At the institutional level, an awareness of multiple mentors beyond the formally-defined institutional

faculty mentor should be increased through incentives and support structures (Bradley et al., 2017).

Undergraduate research programs should be structured to promote the best experiences for all

students, including online tools that facilitate communication and mentoring syllabi so that

expectations among mentors and mentees are clear (Aikens et al., 2017). Institutions that already

require an undergraduate thesis for graduation could structure the program to require weekly

meetings for academic credit, similar to the Independent Study Program at the College of Wooster, in

which students and all faculty advising students, including those serving as co-mentors, receive

credit (Pollock et al., 2013). A formalized thesis committee could serve as the students’ mentor

network if the committee members developed strong ties and true co-mentoring relationships

(Ketcham et al., in press). Mentors should participate in professional development programs that

provide training on mentoring and distinguish between mentoring and supervising, as students do

not always perceive faculty supporters as mentors (Bradley et al., 2017; Kardash et al., 2008;

Russell, 2008; Taraban & Logue, 2012; Thiry & Laursen, 2011). Professional development programs

should also train mentors to identify individual biases and provide strategies for reducing biases

(Aikens et al., 2017).

These strategies will help students and mentors navigate through some of the difficulties of multiple

complex relationships. For additional suggestions, we refer the readers to Shanahan et al. (2015),

who wrote an extensive literature review on the salient practices of undergraduate research mentors,

and Ketcham et al. (in press), who have articulated the practical application of co-mentoring in

undergraduate research.

Closing Thoughts

Mentored undergraduate research is a widely recognized high-impact educational practice. There is

a growing awareness that the landscape of mentoring has, and likely should, move beyond one-to-

one mentoring. Multi-mentoring structures and the practice of co-mentoring can be applied

successfully to undergraduate research, leading to greater positive outcomes for the research

project and enhanced psychosocial and career benefits for the mentors and mentees. Multi-

mentoring does not necessarily mark a shift in practice in the field of undergraduate research as a

whole, but there is a need for institutions to provide support to overcome some of the challenges of

developing quality mentoring relationships that are unique to multi-mentoring. Strategies for

implementing multi- and co-mentoring in undergraduate research consider the development of

relational skills among group members and the structure of the undergraduate research experience.

Success with multi-mentor models will likely lead to a change in faculty development strategies and

an intentionality of mentors to engage with each other in the endeavor of undergraduate research.

Acknowledgements

This project was undertaken as a part of the research seminar Excellence in Mentoring

Undergraduate Research, sponsored by the Center for Engaged Learning at Elon University. We are

particularly indebted to the assistance and support of the seminar leaders, Paul Miller, Maureen

Vandermaas-Peeler, Laura Behling, Brad Johnson, and Jessie Moore. We also thank Erin Dolan for

her insights and feedback. The constructive feedback from two anonymous reviewers greatly

improved the manuscript.

References

Aikens, M. L., Sadselia, S., Watkins, K., Evans, M., Eby, L., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). A social capital

8 P U R M 6.1

perspective on the mentoring of undergraduates in life science researchers: an empirical

study of undergraduate-postgraduate-faculty triads. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15, ar16.

Aikens, M. L., Robertson, M. M., Sadselia, S., Watkins, K., Evans, M., Runyon, C. R., Eby, L. T., &

Dolan, E. L. (2017). Race and gender differences in undergraduate research mentoring

structures and research outcomes. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16 (2), ar34.

Allen, T. D. (2007). Mentoring relationships from the perspective of the mentor. In: B.R. Ragins &K.E.

Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice. Los

Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2007). Common bonds: An integrative view of mentoring relationships. In: T.

D., Allen, L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives

approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. (1996). Conclusion: A lexicon for the new organizational era. In M.B.

Arthur & D. Rousseau (Eds.) The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new

organizational era. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ayers, S. F., & Griffin, L. L. (2005). Chapter 5: PETE mentoring as a mosaic. Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, 24, 368-378.

Barnett, E. A. (2011). Validation experiences and persistence among community college students.

Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 193–230.

Bona, M. J., Rinehart, J., & Volbrecht, R. M. (1995). Show me how to do like you: Co-mentoring as

feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher, 9, 116–124.

Baugh, S. G., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). The effects of multiple mentors on protégé attitudes toward

the work setting. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 503-521.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998). Reinventing

undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Retrieved from

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED424840.

Bradley, E. D., Fitz Gibbon, H. M., Bata, M., Ketcham, C. J., Nicholson, B., & Pollock, M. (in press).

Structure of mentoring in undergraduate research: Multi-mentor models. Scholarship and

Practice of Undergraduate Research.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,

94, 95-120.

Crocitto, M., Sullivan, S., & Carraher, S. (2005). Global mentoring as a means of career development

and knowledge creation: A learning based framework and agenda for future research. Career

Development International, 10(6/7), 522-535.

Dansky, K. H. (1996). The effect of group mentoring on career outcomes. Group & Organization

Management, 21(1), 5-21.

de Janasz, S. C., & Sullivan, S. E. (2004). Multiple mentoring in academe: Developing the professorial

network. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(2), 263-283.

9 P U R M 6.1

de Janasz, S. C., Sullivan, S. E., & Whiting, V. (2003). Mentor networks and career success: Lessons

for turbulent times. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 78-91.

DeCastro, R., Sambuco, D., Ubel, P. A., Stewart, A., & Jagsi, R. (2013). Mentor networks in academic

medicine: moving beyond a dyadic conception of mentoring for junior faculty researchers.

Academic medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 88(4), 488-

496.

Dobrow, S. R., & Higgins, M. C. (2005). Developmental networks and professional identity: A

longitudinal study. Career Development International, 10, 567–583.

Dobrow, S. R., Chandler, Dawn E., Murphy, W. M., & Kram, K. E. (2012). A review of developmental

networks: Incorporating a mutuality perspective. Journal of Management, 38(1), 210-242.

Dolan, E. L., & Johnson, D. (2010). The undergraduate-postgraduate-faculty triad: Unique functions

and tensions associated with undergraduate research experiences at research universities.

CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 543-553.

Dotterer, R. L. (2002). Student‐faculty collaborations, undergraduate research, and collaboration as

an administrative model. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(90), 81-90.

Eby, L. T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: A

conceptual extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of vocational behavior, 51(1), 125-

144.

Gallup. (2014). Life in college matters for life after college: New Gallup-Purdue study looks at links

among college, work, and well-being. Retrieved from

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168848/life-college-matters-life-college.aspx

Gareis, C. R., & Nussbaum-Beach, S. (2007). Electronically mentoring to develop accomplished

professional teachers. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(3-4), 227-246.

Gregerman, S. R. (2009). Filling the gap: The role of undergraduate research in student retention

and academic success. In M.K. Boyd & J.L. Wesemann (Eds.), Broadening participation in

undergraduate research: Fostering excellence and enhancing the impact (pp. 245-256).

Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Guberman, J., Shapiro, B., & Torchia, M. (2006). Making the right moves: a practical guide to

scientific management for postdocs and new faculty. Maryland, NC: Howard Hughes Medical

Institute and Burroughs Wellcome Fund.

Hakim, T. (1998). Soft assessment of undergraduate research: Reactions and student perceptions.

Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 18, 189-192.

Handelsman, J., Pfund, C., Lauffer, S.M., & Pribbenow, C.M. (2005). Entering mentoring: A seminar

to train a new generation of scientists. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Hartmann, J. Q., Widner, S. C., & Carrick, C. (2013). Strong faculty relationships and academic

motivation as potential outcomes of undergraduate research. North American Journal of

Psychology, 15(1), 215-234.

10 P U R M 6.1

Hathaway, R. S., Nagda, B. A., & Gregerman, S. R. (2002). The relationship of undergraduate

research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: an empirical study.

Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 614-631.

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Retrieved from

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/developing-undergraduate-research-and-

inquiry.

Henne, W., Henn, R., McMahon, W., Yee, S.H., Brasel, T., & Mehdiabadi, N.J. (2008). Alumni

perspectives on undergraduate research. In R. Taraban & R.L. Blanton (Eds.), Creating

effective undergraduate research programs in science: The transformation from student to

scientist (pp. 215-232). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Higgins, M. C. (2000). The more the merrier? Multiple developmental relationships and work

satisfaction. Journal of Management Development, 19, 277-296.

Higgins, M. C. (2001). Career change: A social influence perspective. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 22, 595–618.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264-288.

Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the effects

of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 223-247.

Higgins, M. C., Chandler, D. E., & Kram, K. E. (2007). Developmental initiation and developmental

networks. The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice, 349-372.

Higgins, M., Dobrow, S. R., & Roloff, K. S. (2010). Optimism and the boundaryless career: The role of

developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 749-769.

Hu, S., Kuh, G. D., & Li, S. (2008). The effects of engagement in inquiry-oriented activities on student

learning and personal development. Innovative Higher Education, 33(2), 71-81.

Huggins, R., Jenkins, A., & Scurry, D. (2007). Undergraduate research in selected US universities:

report on US visit–institutional case studies. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.

Huizing, R. L. (2012). Mentoring together: A literature review of group mentoring. Mentoring &

Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning, 20(1), 27-55.

Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E.. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate

research in students' cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education,

91, 36–74.

Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., Seymour, E., & DeAntoni, T. (2008). Benefits of participating in

undergraduate research in science: A comparative analysis of student and faculty

perceptions. In R. Taraban and R.L. Blanton (Eds.), Creating effective undergraduate

research programs in science: The transformation from student to scientist (pp. 135-171).

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

11 P U R M 6.1

Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of

mentoring. Professional psychology: Research and practice, 33(1), 88.

Johnson, W. B. (2015). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Johnson, W. B., Barnett, J. E., Elman, N. S., Forrest, L., & Kaslow, N. J. (2012). The competent

community: Toward a vital reformulation of professional ethics. American Psychologist, 67,

557–569.

Johnson, W. B., Barnett, J. E., Elman, N. S., Forrest, L., Schwartz-Mette, R., & Kaslow, N. J. (2014).

Preparing trainees for lifelong competence: Creating a communitarian training culture.

Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(4), 211.

Kardash, C. M., Wallace, M., & Blockus, L. (2008). Undergraduate research experiences: Male and

female interns’ perceptions of gains, disappointments, and self-efficacy. In R. Taraban & R.L.

Blanton (Eds.), Creating effective undergraduate research programs in science: The

transformation from student to scientist (pp. 191-205). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Ketcham, C. J., Hall, E. E., Miller, P. C. (in press) Co-mentoring undergraduate research: Student,

faculty and institutional perspectives. Perspectives on Undergraduate Research and

Mentoring.

Ketcham, C. J., Hall, E. E., Fitz-Gibbons, H., & Walkington, H. (in press) Co-mentoring in

undergraduate research: A faculty development perspective. In J. Moore, M. Vandermaas-

Peeler, & P.E. Milller (Eds) Excellence in mentoring undergraduate research. Washington

D.C.: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview,

IL: Scott Foresman.

Kram, K. E., & Ragins, B. R. (2007). The landscape of mentoring in the 21st century. In B.R. Ragins

&K.E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp.

659-692). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Kroll, J. (2016). What is meant by the term group mentoring? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in

Learning, 24(1), 44-58.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and

why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from:

https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips

Laursen, S. L., Hunter, A.-B., Seymour, E., Thiry, H., & Melton, G. (2010). Undergraduate research in

the sciences: engaging students in real science. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Levine, R. B., Hebert, R. S., & Wright, S. M. (2003). The three‐headed mentor: rethinking the classical

construct. Medical Education, 37(5), 486-486.

Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., & Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research

12 P U R M 6.1

experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347 (6222), 1261757.

Locks, A. M., & Gregerman, S. R. (2008). Undergraduate research as an institutional retention

strategy: The University of Michigan model. In R. Taraban & R. L. Banton (Eds.), Creating

effective undergraduate research programs in science: The transformation from student to

scientist (pp.11-32). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings. Cell Biology

Education, 3, 270-277.

Lopatto, D. (2010). Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience. Peer Review,

12(2), 27-30.

Lopatto, D., & Tobias, S. (2010). Science in solution: The impact of undergraduate research on

student learning. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as

predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student

Development, 45, 549-565.

McKendree, J., Stenning, K., Mayes, T., Lee, J., & Cox, R. (1998). Why observing a dialogue may

benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(2), 110-119.

McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. (2007). Peer mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins and K. Kram

(Eds.), The Handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 273-298). Los Angeles, LA: Sage

Publications.

Mezias, J. M., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). A needs-driven approach to expatriate adjustment and

career development: A multiple mentoring perspective. Journal of International Business

Studies, 36(5), 519-528.

Mullen, C. A. (2009). Re-imagining the human dimension of mentoring: A framework for research

administration and the academy. The Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 10-26.

Mullen, C. A. (2000). Constructing co-mentoring partnerships: walkways we must travel. Theory into

Practice, 39(1), 4-11.

Mullen, C. A. (2016). Alternative mentoring types. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52(3), 132-136.

National Science Foundation. (2000). NSF GPRA Strategic Plan, FY 2002–2006. (NSF Publications

0104). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf0104

Nelson, D. J., & Rogers, D. C. (2003). A national analysis of diversity in science and engineering

faculties at research universities. National Organization for Women. Retrieved from

http://users.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec4-

Nelson+Rogers_Report.pdf

Osborn, J. M., & Karukstis, K. K. (2009). The benefits of undergraduate research, scholarship, and

creative activity. In M.K. Boyd & J.L. Wesemann (Eds.), Broadening participation in

undergraduate research: Fostering excellence and enhancing the impact (pp. 41-53).

Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

13 P U R M 6.1

Owerbach, D., & Oyekan, A. (2015). Undergraduate research experience aids progression, graduation

rates at Texas Southern University, an HBCU. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly,

36(2), 28-32.

Packard, B. W. L., Walsh, L., & Seidenberg, S. (2004). Will that be one mentor or two? A cross‐sectional study of women's mentoring during college. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in

Learning, 12(1), 71-85.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini P. T. (2005) How college affects students: A third decade of research.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peluchette, J. V. E., & Jeanquart, S. (2000). Professionals’ use of different mentor sources at various

career stages: Implications for career success. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 549-564.

Pollock, M., Judge, S., Wiles, G. C., & Wilson, M. A. (2013). Independent study: The culture of

undergraduate research at The College of Wooster. American Geophysical Union, Fall

Meeting 2013.

Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 22, 482–521.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men and

women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4),

529-550.

Russell, S. H. (2008). Undergraduate research opportunities: Facilitating and encouraging the

transition from student to scientist. In R. Taraban & R.L. Blanton (Eds.), Creating effective

undergraduate research programs in science: The transformation from student to scientist

(pp. 53-80). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Schlosser, L. Z., & Gelso, C. J. (2001). Measuring the working alliance in advisor-advisee

relationships in graduate school. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(2), 157-167.

Schlosser, L. Z., Knox, S., Moskovitz, A. R., & Hill, C. E. (2003). A qualitative examination of graduate

advising relationships: The advisee perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2),

178-188.

Scisney-Matlock, M., & Matlock, J. (2001). Promoting understanding of diversity through mentoring

undergraduate students. In A. Reinarz & E. White (Eds.), New Directions for Teaching and

Learning Series Number 85 (pp. 75-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shanahan, J. O., Ackley-Holbrook, E., Hall, E., Stewart, K., & Walkington, H. (2015) Ten salient

practices of undergraduate research mentors: A review of the literature. Mentoring &

Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 23(5), 359-376.

Taraban, R., & Logue, E. (2012). Academic factors that affect undergraduate research experiences.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 499-514.

Thiry, H., & Laursen, S. L. (2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing

14 P U R M 6.1

undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. Journal of Science and

Educational Technology, 20, 771-784.

Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., & Hunter, A.-B. (2010). What experiences help students become scientists?

A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for

STEM undergraduates. Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 357-388.

Thomas, E., & Gillespie, D. (2008). Weaving together undergraduate research, mentoring of junior

faculty, and assessment: The case of an interdisciplinary program. Innovative Higher

Education, 33(1), 29-38.

Towns, M. H. (2010). Where are the women of color? Data on African American, Hispanic, and Native

American faculty in STEM. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39, 6-7.

van Emmerik, I. J. Hetty. (2004). The more you can get the better: Mentoring constellations and

intrinsic career success. Career Development International, 9(6), 578-594.

Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic

process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human

resources management: Vol. 22 (pp. 39-124). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Wei, C. A., & Woodin, T. (2011). Undergraduate research experiences in biology: Alternatives to the

apprenticeship model. CBE Life Sciences Education 10(2), 123-131.

Whiteside, U., Pantelone, D. W., Hunter-Reel, D., Eland, J., Kleiber, B., & Larimer, M. (2007). Initial

suggestions for supervising and mentoring undergraduate research assistants at large

research universities. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education,

19(3), 325-330.

Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: a

framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research & Development,

26(4), 393-409.

Zydney, A. L., Bennett, J. S., Shahid, A., & Bauer, K. W. (2002). Faculty perspectives regarding the

undergraduate research experience in science and engineering. Journal of Engineering

Education, 91, 291-297.

View publication statsView publication stats